Arrogance & Hypocrisy of "Traditionalists"

  • Thread starter Thread starter Nota_Bene
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Thats a real crackpot explanation of schism. So if you were a schismatic , deny everything Catholic , but due to a “statutes of limitation” -you are no longer Schismatic? Seems like another post Vatican II change to suit the Modernist agenda of bringing all the faiths under one umbrella no matter what the cost-all except the traditionalists as they are the only ones smart and devout enough to know a herring when the see one-so they can and must be discarded
40.png
bear06:
First of all, you didn’t correctly read Nota’s post. Nota said:

Secondly, this has been explained to you many times in this thread and previous threads. Here’s Deacon Ed’s explanation again:
Click to expand...
 
40.png
BulldogCath:
Thats a real crackpot explanation of schism. So if you were a schismatic , deny everything Catholic , but due to a “statutes of limitation” -you are no longer Schismatic? Seems like another post Vatican II change to suit the Modernist agenda of bringing all the faiths under one umbrella no matter what the cost-all except the traditionalists as they are the only ones smart and devout enough to know a herring when the see one-so they can and must be discarded
Click to expand...
If one actually denied everything Catholic, one would be a heretic or even perhaps apostate…
 
A heretic is someone who denies a truth of the Catholic faith that he once held (e.g., Martin Luther).

A schismatic is someone who holds the truths of the Catholic faith but is separated from the Apostolic See (i.e. not in communion) (e.g., Greek Orthodox).

An apostate is someone who denies the entire Catholic faith that he once held (e.g., Julian the Apostate).

Many traditionalists would be considered heretics and schismatics because they deny a truth of the Catholic faith that they once held (i.e., the infallibility of ecumenical councils) and because they are separated from the Apostolic See. Ironically, most Protestants today would not be considered heretics because they never denied a truth of the Catholic faith that they once held (they subscribed to a heresy their entire life).
 
If you are denying a council which is Pastoral-and then you are told that you must adhere to something that you are not bound to-that is Modernism-and a duty to politely decline and restate that the council and the teachings were not infallible-but as it was the Modernists who ran with the council before and after-they have pushed the infallibility clause to no end-Vatican II was different from the past 20 councils as it was pastoral.

If the Modernist sticks to the argument that it was infallible-then as per Vatican I-it defined totally new church dogma and hence was not guided by the holy spirit and is not to be obeyed. The schismatic argument is just another liberal push to get their way and to use the council to push out any and all remaining obstacles to get what they have always wanted-A truly Protestant church
40.png
SFH:
A heretic is someone who denies a truth of the Catholic faith that he once held (e.g., Martin Luther).

A schismatic is someone who holds the truths of the Catholic faith but is separated from the Apostolic See (i.e. not in communion) (e.g., Greek Orthodox).

An apostate is someone who denies the entire Catholic faith that he once held (e.g., Julian the Apostate).

Many traditionalists would be considered heretics and schismatics because they deny a truth of the Catholic faith that they once held (i.e., the infallibility of ecumenical councils) and because they are separated from the Apostolic See. Ironically, most Protestants today would not be considered heretics because they never denied a truth of the Catholic faith that they once held (they subscribed to a heresy their entire life).
Click to expand...
 
Please quote me the passages from Vatican II where it defined “totally new church dogma.” Or at least admit that you aren’t aware of any.
 
If you would be so kind and look at the string titled “Vatican II…” you will see where just a few of the many instances where the church has redefined the same teachings that have already been defined in past Councils (Trent, Florence, etc), Papal Bulls and Encyclical.

Unless you have been living under a rock for the past 40 years, it is not hard to find where Vatican II has redefined and changed:
  • The Bible-New American Bible retranslated after Vatican II to be more poliitically correct and fall in line with Ecumenism
  • The New Mass
  • Ecumenism-All faiths are one-all can be saved even if you do not believe in Jesus
  • Tradere-“to pass on”-Tradition after Tradition has been thrown out the window in favor of the liberal and Modern Man-Worship Man instead of God.
  • The changing of the wording of all the sacraments
  • New oath for ordination
  • Revised Baptism wording leaving the sacrament in question as the intent has been changed and excommunication has been taken away-not acknowledging original sin but just “welcoming the individual” into the Christian community
I am tired-go look some of this up it is all over the place.
40.png
SFH:
Please quote me the passages from Vatican II where it defined “totally new church dogma.” Or at least admit that you aren’t aware of any.
Click to expand...
 
If you would be so kind and look at the string titled “Vatican II…” you will see where just a few of the many instances where the church has redefined the same teachings that have already been defined in past Councils (Trent, Florence, etc), Papal Bulls and Encyclical.

Unless you have been living under a rock for the past 40 years, it is not hard to find where Vatican II has redefined and changed:
  • The Bible-New American Bible retranslated after Vatican II to be more poliitically correct and fall in line with Ecumenism
  • The New Mass
  • Ecumenism-All faiths are one-all can be saved even if you do not believe in Jesus
  • Tradere-“to pass on”-Tradition after Tradition has been thrown out the window in favor of the liberal and Modern Man-Worship Man instead of God.
  • The changing of the wording of all the sacraments
  • New oath for ordination
  • Revised Baptism wording leaving the sacrament in question as the intent has been changed and excommunication has been taken away-not acknowledging original sin but just “welcoming the individual” into the Christian community
I am tired-go look some of this up it is all over the place.
40.png
SFH:
Please quote me the passages from Vatican II where it defined “totally new church dogma.” Or at least admit that you aren’t aware of any.
Click to expand...
 
40.png
BulldogCath:
If you would be so kind and look at the string titled “Vatican II…” you will see where just a few of the many instances where the church has redefined the same teachings that have already been defined in past Councils (Trent, Florence, etc), Papal Bulls and Encyclical.

Unless you have been living under a rock for the past 40 years, it is not hard to find where Vatican II has redefined and changed:
  • The Bible-New American Bible retranslated after Vatican II to be more poliitically correct and fall in line with Ecumenism
  • The New Mass
  • Ecumenism-All faiths are one-all can be saved even if you do not believe in Jesus
  • Tradere-“to pass on”-Tradition after Tradition has been thrown out the window in favor of the liberal and Modern Man-Worship Man instead of God.
  • The changing of the wording of all the sacraments
  • New oath for ordination
  • Revised Baptism wording leaving the sacrament in question as the intent has been changed and excommunication has been taken away-not acknowledging original sin but just “welcoming the individual” into the Christian community
I am tired-go look some of this up it is all over the place.
Click to expand...
Ah yes, the only problem with your argument is that:
  • Vatican II did not do the New American Bible translation of the Bible it was done by the Confraternity of Christian Doctrine (incidentally every book of the Old Testament with the exception of Genesis and the Revised Psalms was translated before Vatican II and is contained in the Confraternity Edition)
  • Vatican II did not draft the “New Mass,” and the only requirement with respect to language in Vatican II is that Latin be retained in the liturgy
  • Vatican II never said you can be saved if you do not believe in Jesus Christ and Vatican II’s doctrines on salvation are consistent with all the earlier ecumenical councils as well as the Church Fathers and historic practice (e.g., the Catholic Church has always celebrated the Feast of the Holy Innocents even though none of the children killed “believed” in Christ or had been baptized)
  • Vatican II did not change the wording of any sacrament. That was done after Vatican II.
  • Vatican II does not contain the oath of ordination in any of its documents.
  • The revised baptism wording is not found in any of the documents of Vatican II either.
Nor can you fault Vatican II because it didn’t condemn Modernism or Communism. The Council of Trent didn’t define the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, but that didn’t make the Council of Trent any less infallible. Similarly, the Council of Nicea didn’t define the doctrine of justification, but that didn’t make that Council any less infallible.

Your beef is with changes that were made after Vatican II. And yes, some of those changes might be suspect, heretical, or render certain sacraments invalid. But I don’t remember Christ limiting the amount of time he would be with His Church to the 1960s, so my bet is that what’s been approved by Rome is approved by God. Now as for those things that aren’t approved by Rome … well … go get 'em tiger!!!
 
It all was spawn from Vatican II -Read the documents on the liturgy from the council and to make it “fit for the Modern man”. Sounds very Masonic to this observer And if it was not due to Vatican II-it was due to corrupt Cardinals and Bishops who bulldozed over the traditional laity during a time of radical change all around where people were not paying attention and we were all being told at the time that yes, newer is always better.

Sort of like when the ripped down the beautiful old Penn Station in New York in 1962 and replaced it with that Modern glass piece of garbage with Madison square garden on top of it-like a rat running through the maze each day. From that the Preservation Movement was born and Landmarks. People cry to this day how something like that could have ever happened

From Vatican II the Traditionalist movement was born and millions have said -Basta! Enough! Give us back our Church!
40.png
SFH:
Ah yes, the only problem with your argument is that:
  • Vatican II did not do the New American Bible translation of the Bible it was done by the Confraternity of Christian Doctrine (incidentally every book of the Old Testament with the exception of Genesis and the Revised Psalms was translated before Vatican II and is contained in the Confraternity Edition)
  • Vatican II did not draft the “New Mass,” and the only requirement with respect to language in Vatican II is that Latin be retained in the liturgy
  • Vatican II never said you can be saved if you do not believe in Jesus Christ and Vatican II’s doctrines on salvation are consistent with all the earlier ecumenical councils as well as the Church Fathers and historic practice (e.g., the Catholic Church has always celebrated the Feast of the Holy Innocents even though none of the children killed “believed” in Christ or had been baptized)
  • Vatican II did not change the wording of any sacrament. That was done after Vatican II.
  • Vatican II does not contain the oath of ordination in any of its documents.
  • The revised baptism wording is not found in any of the documents of Vatican II either.
Nor can you fault Vatican II because it didn’t condemn Modernism or Communism. The Council of Trent didn’t define the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, but that didn’t make the Council of Trent any less infallible. Similarly, the Council of Nicea didn’t define the doctrine of justification, but that didn’t make that Council any less infallible.

Your beef is with changes that were made after Vatican II. And yes, some of those changes might be suspect, heretical, or render certain sacraments invalid. But I don’t remember Christ limiting the amount of time he would be with His Church to the 1960s, so my bet is that what’s been approved by Rome is approved by God. Now as for those things that aren’t approved by Rome … well … go get 'em tiger!!!
Click to expand...
 
That all may be true, but the evil that men did under the pretext of Vatican II doesn’t make Vatican II any less of an ecumenical council.

That would be like condemning Christ because many heresies originated under the pretext of His teachings.

Read the parts of Sozoman’s ecclesiastical history that deal with the Arian controversy. Imagine where we would be today if St. Athenasius and Pope St. Julius had refused to defend the Council of Nicea and instead let the Arians define what the Council of Nicea meant.

The traditionalists belong in the Church, defending Her ecumenical councils, and fighting for the authentic interpretation of Vatican II. Yes, the documents from Vatican II are vague and subject to multiple meanings. But the Arians had a field-day with the word “consubstantial” from the Council of Nicea. When orthodox Catholics leave the Church, they place an extraordinary burden on the orthodox Catholics who remain, who must defend the Faith of the Fathers with fewer numbers.
 
If the Modernist sticks to the argument that it was infallible-then as per Vatican I-it defined totally new church dogma and hence was not guided by the holy spirit and is not to be obeyed. The schismatic argument is just another liberal push to get their way and to use the council to push out any and all remaining obstacles to get what they have always wanted-A truly Protestant church
Click to expand...
Helloooooooooooooooooo??? The true Modernists reject VII. I can’t remember that last time I heard a Modernist say that any Council was infallible because they don’t believe in infallibility. They believe in their own private interpretations of everything. Who again is saying that VII defined new Church dogma? Once again, there seems to be 2 sides to the same coin here. And once again, where oh where has the Church stated that Vatican II is not infallible?
 
Nota Bene:
Likely…
Click to expand...
Well it is 1 post closer now to 500

I must say that this thread is a tribute to the strong held beliefs on both sides. I just want to ask, why has just 40 years of changes polarized both sides? The answer : I am glad everybody on this thread loves their Catholic Church so much. My hope is that the Church is reading this forum, and everybody realizes the we are all in the “one true church”.

Fogny
 
40.png
Fogny:
Well it is 1 post closer now to 500

I must say that this thread is a tribute to the strong held beliefs on both sides. I just want to ask, why has just 40 years of changes polarized both sides? The answer : I am glad everybody on this thread loves their Catholic Church so much. My hope is that the Church is reading this forum, and everybody realizes the we are all in the “one true church”.

Fogny
Click to expand...
Quite true. In all honesty I think the bishops lost control of the Church beginning in the mid to late 1960’s and all hell broke loose (metaphorically speaking of course.)

No that things were necessarily rosey before they lost control…
 
Deacon Tony560:
It’s warmer in this thread than in Bel Air!

Deacon Tony
Click to expand...
Ok ya’ll, no post padding. If you have nothing mean, sarcastic, controversial, pertinent or insulting…or funny, then restrain yourself. This thread must grow “organically”.
 
40.png
TNT:
Ok ya’ll, no post padding. If you have nothing mean, sarcastic, controversial, pertinent or insulting…or funny, then restrain yourself. This thread must grow “organically”.
Click to expand...
I’m not sure if it matters at this point. Because this thread is not in Latin (or is that Hebrew?) it must be schismatic and/or heretical, right?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top